JohnB wrote:I can't see why I'd buy FTSE trackers now.
About 80% of FTSE 100 companies' total sales are made outside of the UK. Most of the stocks in my HYP make less than 10%.
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
JohnB wrote:I can't see why I'd buy FTSE trackers now.
XFool wrote:88V8 wrote:The main problem is that little of this will bear fruit before the next GE, and if the belief is that Labour will win and reverse the tax cuts where is the incentive to invest.
The growing expectation of a Labour win is of itself the greatest headwind to any economic recovery.
So, if it fails, it will be "Labour's fault"?
88V8 wrote:The main problem is that little of this will bear fruit before the next GE, and if the belief is that Labour will win and reverse the tax cuts where is the incentive to invest.
The growing expectation of a Labour win is of itself the greatest headwind to any economic recovery.
V8
Lootman wrote:What "evidence" is that? At this point there is near universal agreement that Thatcher saved the UK from the economic ruin it had suffered since WW2.
Gilgongo wrote:Lootman wrote:What "evidence" is that? At this point there is near universal agreement that Thatcher saved the UK from the economic ruin it had suffered since WW2.
The only thing that really counts in all of politics is whether it delivers better living standards and prosperity for the majority of people.
Gilgongo wrote:If you disagree with me, I invite you to cite your evidence to the contrary. And no, your memory of the 70's doesn't count. Thatcher's politics were a disaster for the vast majority of people in Britain. She and Reagan are directly responsible for the current UK government, and Trump in the US. Driving division and inequality does that every time.
Gilgongo wrote:Lootman wrote:No, the last time it was tried was by Thatcher in the 1980s, and you won't find many people claiming that was not successful.
I think the word "it" is doing some rather heavy lifting in that sentence.
https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/44/2/319/5550923
"Thatcher claimed that she had improved the economic prospects of the UK and all its citizens through the application of neo-liberal policies; that is (according to her definition of neo-liberalism), free-market policies. The evidence, however, does not support this claim."
Lootman wrote:Gilgongo wrote:Lootman wrote:What "evidence" is that? At this point there is near universal agreement that Thatcher saved the UK from the economic ruin it had suffered since WW2.
The only thing that really counts in all of politics is whether it delivers better living standards and prosperity for the majority of people.
Stop right there. I disagree with that premise and therefore anything that follows from it is flawed.
Lootman wrote:Gilgongo wrote:If you disagree with me, I invite you to cite your evidence to the contrary. And no, your memory of the 70's doesn't count. Thatcher's politics were a disaster for the vast majority of people in Britain. She and Reagan are directly responsible for the current UK government, and Trump in the US. Driving division and inequality does that every time.
Politics is not ultimately about "evidence". It is about values and preferences.
Lootman wrote:So yes, if you preferred exchange controls, 98% tax rates, strikes, 3-day weeks and begging letters to the IMF, then the 1970s were great. Again if you are obsessed with "inequality" (i.e. envy) then again you would prefer a time when nobody could achieve success.
XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:Gilgongo wrote:Lootman wrote:What "evidence" is that? At this point there is near universal agreement that Thatcher saved the UK from the economic ruin it had suffered since WW2.
The only thing that really counts in all of politics is whether it delivers better living standards and prosperity for the majority of people.
Stop right there. I disagree with that premise and therefore anything that follows from it is flawed.
No. That you "disagree" with it doesn't mean it is "flawed".
MrFoolish wrote:As an explainer: Lootman is interested in better living standards and prosperity for Lootman, not for the majority of people. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm not).
Nimrod103 wrote:Interesting contribution from Patrick Minford tonight:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/0 ... ds-idiots/
[i]There is no sterling crisis, except in the minds of idiots
It is important to leave the pound free to find the level that will allow the Government's pro-growth policies to work
XFool wrote:
Well, it has to be somebody's fault and it obviously cannot be the fault of those responsible for it, can it?
Bubblesofearth wrote:Average outstanding mortgage is 3.6X average wage
Average property price is 7.5X average wage
Wuffle wrote:I can't see past the demographics.
The boomers were 30/35 when Mrs T came to power and life expectancy wasn't all that, so less drag.
I suspect the growth just isn't there to be magically released anymore in an utterly unremarkable modern economy (USA being the remarkable one, for reasons of scale, energy independence, dollar, food production).
Japan and Europe are basically in the same boat, along with others.
Most discussion here is second order.
I am not optimistic.
W.
servodude wrote:Bubblesofearth wrote:Average outstanding mortgage is 3.6X average wage
Average property price is 7.5X average wage
Ok - so why the divergence?
3.6 doesn't seem a huge multiplier for borrowing
So why do things seen unusually expensive
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests